Error and/or relief
Various clerical errors in the minute order memorializing the defendant’s sentence and on the abstract of judgment need to be corrected. In counts 3 through 9, defendant was found guilty of sexual battery within the meaning of section 243.4(a). The abstract of judgment for the determinate sentence correctly identified the applicable statute as section 243.4(a) for counts 3 and 4, but it incorrectly identified the applicable statute as section 243.5(a) for counts 5 through 9. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a minimum restitution fine of $300 and a suspended parole revocation fine of $300. However, the relevant minute order and the abstract of judgment list each of these fines as $4,500. We find both fines were $300.
First Holding:
Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have jurisdiction to order corrections of clerical errors contained in an abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment will be corrected to reflect the correct statute.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
Second Holding:
When there is a discrepancy between an oral pronouncement of judgment and an abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. A court of appeal can order trial courts to amend a minute order and abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the trial courts oral pronouncement.
Authority:
People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244 [abstract of judgment]
People v. Morales (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1587, 1594 [minute order]
People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 260-261